Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (6889)	10/22/2001 9:25:19 PM
From: Mac Con Ulaidh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Not that I don't have some agreement with your remarks, as I'm sure you know. Though.. I, personally, subscribe to the theory that Mary Magdalane was pregnant and made it to the south of France and founded a line of Kings whom the Knights Templar were founded to protect. But that's another theory. <g> Not to get distracted... you and I both know of the opinions of some, and that this thread does not speak as one voice on the issue. I would ask that this discussion, should it continue, perhaps move to the Boxing Ring? I enjoy it here as a place to discuss foreign affairs, and our current domestic situation. Not to mention learning about nuclear plants, and WWII. And there are many ways to serve, and die. No one can take that from any of us.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (6889)	10/22/2001 10:24:19 PM
From: oconnellc	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

MQ, You appear to have some interesting theories on why the armed forces treat homosexuals the way they do. I'm curious... could you play devils advocate for a few moments and tell my why you would refuse to let homosexuals serve in the armed forces (I assume that is the treatment you are talking about)? I'm asking this question because you made what I thought was an interesting comment regarding freedom. Personally, I am ambivalent to members of the US military having any freedom. Our armed forces are all voluntary, if there was a draft, I might see things differently (but then, if there was a real need for a draft, then maybe I wouldn't). I think the armed forces should be good at killing people and destroying things. If a little bit of freedom for the people in the armed forces reduces from their effectiveness at those two tasks, then that freedom is bad. In the USA, the right to life comes before the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness (no one is guaranteed happiness, just the right to pursue it. That is, as long as it doesn't get in the way of liberty or life). I think we should pay the members of our volunteer armed forces very well, and train them to be part of an extremely efficient killing machine. Anything that gets in the way of that efficiency shouldn't be allowed. I think this business of being forced to allow people to serve their country is silly. If you want to serve your country, volunteer at a homeless shelter, pick up litter, teach a kid to read, whatever. If you want to be part of an extremely efficient killing machine, join the armed forces. If you don't make the armed forces any more efficient, or worse, make them less efficient, then we don't want you in them. At least, I don't. I have a brother in the military. People die where he works on a regular basis. Not because of war, but just because that is the way his job is. That doesn't happen where I work, or where most people work. But he lives with the fact that when his ship leaves on a 9 month cruise, odds are that people in his engine room will die while they are at work. They have every time so far... So, just curious, can you think of any reason why some people shouldn't be allowed to serve in the armed forces? Even if you don't agree with them, what are the best reasons you can come up with? Chris